It also contains a useful calculator. As said elsewhere DoF depends mostly on the focal length and aperture (among other things and definitions).

To cut a long story short the calculator gives the equivalent combinations of focal length and aperture for a specific sensor format as required to achieve the same perspective AND DoF in a 35 mm system. The CX format can be extrapolated easily. People can do their sums.

I personally see no way any current mirrorless can replace a DSLR system. Hence I prefer those systems that complement it best, mostly for landscapes, difficult viewing angles and macro and I prefer u4/3 to a DX mirrorless. This new Nikon is also fast with a good viewfinder. Early days yet but would a small 200/2.8 (similar to 550/6.3) with a lot of light gathering abilities be that bad to have for a day out at a F1 Gran Prix?

Dear wetsleet,

first of all, why not using a little more old style education for the pleasure of discussing matters. Shooting people is a big to do you know.Secondly I am talking about complementing tools. Small sensor cameras give you a lot of freedom. 5x4 landscape master Ansel Adams described his 35mm camera as “an extension of the eye as used freely in the hand". And do you think Galen Rowell shot his work with a large format as he was climbing mountains?

Have a look here: http://www.ephotozine.com/article/shooting-professional-looking-landscapes-with-compact-cameras-16293

It also contains a useful calculator. As said elsewhere DoF depends mostly on the focal length and aperture (among other things and definitions).

To cut a long story short the calculator gives the equivalent combinations of focal length and aperture for a specific sensor format as required to achieve the same perspective AND DoF in a 35 mm system. The CX format can be extrapolated easily. People can do their sums.

I personally see no way any current mirrorless can replace a DSLR system. Hence I prefer those systems that complement it best, mostly for landscapes, difficult viewing angles and macro and I prefer u4/3 to a DX mirrorless. This new Nikon is also fast with a good viewfinder. Early days yet but would a small 200/2.8 (similar to 550/6.3) with a lot of light gathering abilities be that bad to have for a day out at a F1 Gran Prix?

I feel that this sensor issue must be put in perspective. It is a little technical so I deal with it in two posts. Noise first.

The photocurrent (signal) can be assumed proportional to the pixel area.There are two kind of noises: the shot noise (inherent of light) and electronics noise. The latter dominates in low light. The former grows with the signal and dominates in bright light. Electronics S/N is proportional to the signal whilst the shot noise grows with its square root.

A few sums for a 10 Mpx CX vs a 16Mp DX sensor show 100% degradation at (very) high ISO (low light) and 40% degradation at high ISO (bright light) or about 1 ISO stop at high ISO and 0.5 ISO stop at low ISO.

Performance though depends greatly on digital processing and actual chip implementation. Notice that the V1 has on chip ADC conversion that greatly reduce electronics noise.

Given all this I am not worried about noise in real life nor surprised by web test shots and comments of people.

Alvis II: I think there is a danger of missing the point here. Nikon has introduced a new and competent system. To me it means a different perspective to photography and is welcome. Some people will find it useful others will not, or just think so.Had Nikon produced another equivalent mirrorless, it would have meant nothing to me.

My main system is and will remain DSLR based (FX and DX). But I also use film SLR, a u4/3 system, an ultrazoom and occasionally I borrow a pocket quality camera from my daughter. All have their space depending on the situation.

I use already and appreciate a u4/3 mirrorless system. Infact I love it as is great fun. But on my experience it cannot replace a DSLR system in 85% of cases. It is instead a very useful complement to it. A DX mirrorless system complements it less well for me, which is why I chosen the u4/3. This new Nikon allows even more crop factor to explore, it has a good EVF (so it seems) which I may hate less than others I tried. It is fast with a fast AF. Long lenses can be made small. From What I have seen on the web, noise, colours and details already exceed the real life requirements. Price is always an issue of course but also a moving target, as it is technology performance. Lenses should and could be cheaper as well. The point is that there is a new CX system to look at, not just another camera with some small improvement on ISO latitude.

I think there is a danger of missing the point here. Nikon has introduced a new and competent system. To me it means a different perspective to photography and is welcome. Some people will find it useful others will not, or just think so.Had Nikon produced another equivalent mirrorless, it would have meant nothing to me.

My main system is and will remain DSLR based (FX and DX). But I also use film SLR, a u4/3 system, an ultrazoom and occasionally I borrow a pocket quality camera from my daughter. All have their space depending on the situation.

I welcome that Nikon has simply produced another useful tool. A nearly complete and well thought system infact. The only missing thing is a good ultra-wideangle which I am looking forward for exploring the extra DOF on offer. I think the IQ and noise are not an issue both theoretically and especially after seeing these samples. I use compacts (Panasonic and Fuji), Olympus M4/3, Nikon DX and FX cameras. I still use film. All systems have their use and I use them all. Now I am just curious to see what the V1 and its CX format allows me to do in the real world. That's all there is to it folks. Cameras systems are just tools.